Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #673895 > unrolled thread

BEING exists, Nothingness does not.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-30 01:55 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:52 +0000
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-30 10:40 +0200
    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-30 13:38 -0700
      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 12:10 +0000
        Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 23:03 +0200
          Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:55 +0000
            Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-03 22:52 +0200
              Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ken Tulohonov <onvn@onotlvt.ru> - 2026-10-03 21:38 +0000
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-03 22:53 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-03 23:11 -0700
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-04 00:40 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-04 11:13 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-04 09:55 -0700
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-04 11:27 -0700
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Dennie Duronov <urnd@rnd.ru> - 2026-10-04 21:08 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-05 10:48 -0700
                      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Niarcos Veselkov <avor@rooso.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:46 +0000
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-04 14:03 +0200
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ambrose Bazanov <an@mao.ru> - 2026-10-04 21:04 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-05 19:44 +0200
                      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 14:35 -0700
              Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-04 11:04 +0000
                Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-04 17:58 +0200
                  Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-05 08:59 +0000
                    Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-05 13:53 +0200
                      Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 07:53 -0700
                        Re: BEING exists, Nothingness does not. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 09:46 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#674194

Ambrose Bazanov <an@mao.ru> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> >> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> >> 
> >> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero,
> > 
> > That depends on which mathematician you consult about it.
> > 
> >> but the Roman numbers does not. No.
> > 
> > Romans did not calculate with their numbers.
> > They used an abacus,
> > and their numbers were just a convenient notation for the state of the
> > abacus.
> > 
> > The zero is implicit in any abacus. (the empty position) There just is
> > no need to write it out,
> 
> thanks

For further information:
It was pope Sylvester II (~946 papacy 999-1003)
who reintroduced the abacus, and lots more of arabic science,
in Western Europe to make arithmetic practical again.
He also knew about hindu-arabic numerals.
He was a scientist in his own right. Much more at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II>

The whole idea of dumb priest and popes suppressing all knowledge,
and believing the Earth to be flat,
is an idea from 19th century (mostly American)
anti-clericalist propaganda,

Jan



  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674196

On 10/05/2026 10:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ambrose Bazanov <an@mao.ru> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>>>> OK, no source, just loose talk,
>>>>
>>>> not sure the Natural numbers includes zero,
>>>
>>> That depends on which mathematician you consult about it.
>>>
>>>> but the Roman numbers does not. No.
>>>
>>> Romans did not calculate with their numbers.
>>> They used an abacus,
>>> and their numbers were just a convenient notation for the state of the
>>> abacus.
>>>
>>> The zero is implicit in any abacus. (the empty position) There just is
>>> no need to write it out,
>>
>> thanks
>
> For further information:
> It was pope Sylvester II (~946 papacy 999-1003)
> who reintroduced the abacus, and lots more of arabic science,
> in Western Europe to make arithmetic practical again.
> He also knew about hindu-arabic numerals.
> He was a scientist in his own right. Much more at:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II>
>
> The whole idea of dumb priest and popes suppressing all knowledge,
> and believing the Earth to be flat,
> is an idea from 19th century (mostly American)
> anti-clericalist propaganda,
>
> Jan
>
>
>
>
>


Buckinghman-pi is still a Flat Earther's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674166

On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 22:52:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 
>> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Richard Hachel wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness
>> >> >> does not.
>> >> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
>> >> 
>> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
>> >> serious crime.
>> > 
>> > Source for this papal rule?
>> 
>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>> money'
>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> 
> OK, no source, just loose talk,

If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in much 
of Europe...by the church. 
 
> Jan (not surprised)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674176

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Oct 2026 22:52:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:03:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> 
> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:38:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> The key point to consider is that if BEING exists, Nothingness
> >> >> >> does not.
> >> >> >> Relativistic thought introduces a form of "Nothingness"
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > "Nothingness"  has nothing to do with Relativistic.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion by religious fanatics.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > "Nothingness" is a religion.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Look at who originated "Nothingness".
> >> >> 
> >> >> 1000 years ago, the pope ruled that mentioning the number zero was a
> >> >> serious crime.
> >> > 
> >> > Source for this papal rule?
> >> 
> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> >> money'
> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> > 
> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> 
> If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in much
> of Europe...by the church. 
>  
> > Jan (not surprised)

If that is really the case it should be easy for you
to find a reference where this 'serious crime' is mentioned,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674189

On Sun, 4 Oct 2
>> >> > 
>> >> > Source for this papal rule?
>> >> 
>> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>> >> money'
>> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
>> > 
>> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
>> 
>> If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in
>> much of Europe...by the church.
>>  
>> > Jan (not surprised)
> 
> If that is really the case it should be easy for you to find a reference
> where this 'serious crime' is mentioned,

Are you to stupid to do an internet search? There is plenty of imformation 
about the banning of zero.  
 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674190

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Oct 2
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Source for this papal rule?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
> >> >> money'
> >> >> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
> >> > 
> >> > OK, no source, just loose talk,
> >> 
> >> If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in
> >> much of Europe...by the church.
> >>  
> >> > Jan (not surprised)
> > 
> > If that is really the case it should be easy for you to find a reference
> > where this 'serious crime' is mentioned,
> 
> Are you to stupid to do an internet search? There is plenty of imformation
> about the banning of zero.  

So you are really that dumb. You posit something on usenet,
you supply a demonstration of the truth.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674191

On 10/05/2026 04:53 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Source for this papal rule?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>>>>>> money'
>>>>>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, no source, just loose talk,
>>>>
>>>> If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in
>>>> much of Europe...by the church.
>>>>
>>>>> Jan (not surprised)
>>>
>>> If that is really the case it should be easy for you to find a reference
>>> where this 'serious crime' is mentioned,
>>
>> Are you to stupid to do an internet search? There is plenty of imformation
>> about the banning of zero.
>
> So you are really that dumb. You posit something on usenet,
> you supply a demonstration of the truth.
>
> Jan
>


There's "differential geometry", often the main of which should
be called "partial differential geometry", since similarly to
how "classical functions" won't admit vertical tangents, that
"partial differential geometry" won't admit horizontal tangents.

When learning of this, I think most people would be apalled,
since it seems they intend to re-define "function" to be of
less generality than it is, then to claim more generality for
various numerical methods, when really it should be "pdg-functions",
that "partial differential geometry" is just a little sub-field.


Basically making accounts about the total and absolute about
"holonomy" then resulting an opposite meaning and calling it same,
makes for that "partial differential geometry" is considered
what it should be, since "differential geometry" would include
the "total" and "absolute" of the "differential geometry",
not "banning zero" since "banning infinity".


So, it's f'in wrong and a lie, much like "classical quasi-modal logic".


Zero is more than just a singularity, along with infinity, since
singularities in what would be singularity theories are branches
in a multiplicity theory, then for example that the "identity
dimension", including zero, is an extended singularity, and the
envelope of the linear fractional equation, Clairaut's equation,
d'Alembert's equation, and so on, the integral equations.


Quantum mechanics since Born that basically intend to include
"rest" have the failing that much like Planck being smallest
yet finite, have that thusly they have no straight lines,
right angles, perfect circles, and so on.



Zero, one, and infinity are the regular singular points of
the hypergeometric.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#674192

On 10/05/2026 07:53 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/05/2026 04:53 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Source for this papal rule?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia...'history of number' I think...or maybe the 'history of
>>>>>>> money'
>>>>>>> or astronomy. It is there somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, no source, just loose talk,
>>>>>
>>>>> If you care to look you will find that the number zero was banned in
>>>>> much of Europe...by the church.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan (not surprised)
>>>>
>>>> If that is really the case it should be easy for you to find a
>>>> reference
>>>> where this 'serious crime' is mentioned,
>>>
>>> Are you to stupid to do an internet search? There is plenty of
>>> imformation
>>> about the banning of zero.
>>
>> So you are really that dumb. You posit something on usenet,
>> you supply a demonstration of the truth.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
>
> There's "differential geometry", often the main of which should
> be called "partial differential geometry", since similarly to
> how "classical functions" won't admit vertical tangents, that
> "partial differential geometry" won't admit horizontal tangents.
>
> When learning of this, I think most people would be apalled,
> since it seems they intend to re-define "function" to be of
> less generality than it is, then to claim more generality for
> various numerical methods, when really it should be "pdg-functions",
> that "partial differential geometry" is just a little sub-field.
>
>
> Basically making accounts about the total and absolute about
> "holonomy" then resulting an opposite meaning and calling it same,
> makes for that "partial differential geometry" is considered
> what it should be, since "differential geometry" would include
> the "total" and "absolute" of the "differential geometry",
> not "banning zero" since "banning infinity".
>
>
> So, it's f'in wrong and a lie, much like "classical quasi-modal logic".
>
>
> Zero is more than just a singularity, along with infinity, since
> singularities in what would be singularity theories are branches
> in a multiplicity theory, then for example that the "identity
> dimension", including zero, is an extended singularity, and the
> envelope of the linear fractional equation, Clairaut's equation,
> d'Alembert's equation, and so on, the integral equations.
>
>
> Quantum mechanics since Born that basically intend to include
> "rest" have the failing that much like Planck being smallest
> yet finite, have that thusly they have no straight lines,
> right angles, perfect circles, and so on.
>
>
>
> Zero, one, and infinity are the regular singular points of
> the hypergeometric.
>
>


So, zero meters-per-second, is, infinity seconds-per-meter.
Yet, what that ignores is that rest is transient, that
zero meters-per-second, is in seconds (secondae, after minutae,
units of time), and infinity seconds-per-meter, is also in seconds,
everything all parameterized by time.

So, the dimensional analysis, is a bit too weakly the dimensionless
analysis, that a wider dimensioned analysis, brings in the non-local,
and the overall potentialistic account of theory, about which the
usual account of "the classical" is a bit "the partial".


It's similar the difference between "length" and "distance", or
about "metric" and "norm": no longer do meters suffice, since,
distance is meters in time/time, about the infinitely-many higher orders
of acceleration all in time.

Further reductionist accounts result zero (by zero).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web